The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to Become a Pro Golfer (Dan McLaughlin)

[nevets88]

I get what @Shorty is saying and agree 100%. But... But the press doesn't wanna hear this. They want ratings/eyeballs so they're gonna prop him up. I noticed more than a few articles noting his handicap but that's it. They don't expand on the details behind it. And people aren't gonna take the time to figure out the gritty details that go into calculating the handicap. Sure, you can say tl;dr he fudged his number. But people wanna believe what they believe and that's the simple message that hey if you put in enough hours you can be Albert Mozart von daVinci. I don't have 10k hours so I can't be a genius but it's in there. Media exaggerates, public believes, it's a vicious self perpetuating cycle.

[flopster]

I like the Australian method better also since it seems to help the better player more and if I did it right I would be a 4.9 right now . My lowest would probably have been about 3.5. I wish we here in the states would do that and get rid of all the damn sandbagging going on, I had to email our handicap chairperson about a guy who is using 3 year old revision scores when he was supposed to be a 13 he was playing more like a 7 in a recent tournament he won.

[flopster]

Right. Its a better way. Having a 9 on the 18th after being a couple under your hcp was a great way to ruin your week. At least a wipe limits the damage.

But it is all done via computer. At the end of thr round you enter your scores into the software in the clubhouse. All the adjustments are done for you

Under the old system, an inconsistent player might regularly have 32-36 points in stableford but would never get within 10 of nett par in stroke.

This is what makes pro scores so impressive. 6 birdies but two doubles and youve missed the cut. No hiding behind ESC or its cousins.

" I had two over for 16 holes" Wow, how did you finish?

8 over. So you didn't even break 80?

But i played great!

But you shot 80!

This is what Dan doesnt get.

(typing on phone)

I remember seeing that many times in his countdown blog, "was 3 over through 14"  or "minus 1 in a 7 hole stretch".

[iacas]

I've been using 0.96 for my multiplier.

http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm

Correctly so, yes.

Dan's wrong about 0.97.

[nevets88]

Ch 7 Sydney(?) interview:

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/24555513/born-or-made/

[flopster]

Ch 7 Sydney(?) interview:

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/24555513/born-or-made/

Dan said the 10,000 hour theory wasn't the initial test? He comes across as more of a dreamer than someone testing a theory and having a real plan, it has been brought up before and the fact he didn't do any real documentation of correlation of practice/results it takes on the appearance of shooting in the dark versus a thought out process.

[nevets88]

Dan said the 10,000 hour theory wasn't the initial test? He comes across as more of a dreamer than someone testing a theory and having a real plan, it has been brought up before and the fact he didn't do any real documentation of correlation of practice/results it takes on the appearance of shooting in the dark versus a thought out process.

Or like someone who had a quarter life/career crisis, threw something on the wall, and it stuck enough to be somewhat interesting and sustaining. All the positivity on his media platforms, and it's fine if you're contributing, we're all free to do whatever we want with our money, but it's just a major turnoff to me. Just throw out the deliberate practice angle, which the morning show hostess misnamed as dedicated practice, remove it because I don't see much of it and just call it what it is, a very unscientific, flakey wishy washy attempt at making people feel good and be entertained. Bread and circuses. No I don't want a Dan Plan hat or towel. http://thedanplan.com/dan-plan-store-2/

[Lihu]

Dan said the 10,000 hour theory wasn't the initial test? He comes across as more of a dreamer than someone testing a theory and having a real plan, it has been brought up before and the fact he didn't do any real documentation of correlation of practice/results it takes on the appearance of shooting in the dark versus a thought out process.

He said that "When you take something as complex as golf where there aren't necessarily any genetic traits that would help you succeed". He also said that "By the time I finish my 10,000 hours, I'll be younger than Tiger is now. . ."

The interviewers didn't sound all that convinced that he could succeed. The beginning comments and the ending comments stated that it's not possible at least for the two interviewers. Also, the constant giggles from the lady were a dead giveaway for me. She did at least mention that he is in the top 4% of all golfers in the world, which I think is a reference to his vanity cap of 2-3.

While I admit that his swing looks pretty good, it still looks really wimpy. So, how do you take a wimpy swing like that and convince people that this swing will take him into the PGA Tour? The only thing I can think of is really good marketing.

As long as he doesn't sound like a total fool to the general public he still has a bright future in marketing.

[golf-noob-bruce]

While I admit that his swing looks pretty good, it still looks really wimpy.

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean by "wimpy". He hasn't posted any recent videos on his blog that I can find, but the videos that there are of his driver swing looks better than most of the guys I see at the range (and I go a fair bit) and certainly not wimpy in comparison. Sure, he's not a big dude, but he seems to use what he's got fairly well.

[MS256]

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean by "wimpy". He hasn't posted any recent videos on his blog that I can find, but the videos that there are of his driver swing looks better than most of the guys I see at the range (and I go a fair bit) and certainly not wimpy in comparison. Sure, he's not a big dude, but he seems to use what he's got fairly well.

But do "most of the guys I see at the range" think they are going to be Tour players?

I think Dan's swing looks fine for somebody playing in our Saturday game but pretty sure he wouldn't crack the top 5 in distance even in that game...and nobody in that game has any aspirations to do anything other than have a little fun on the weekends.

[Lihu]

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean by "wimpy". He hasn't posted any recent videos on his blog that I can find, but the videos that there are of his driver swing looks better than most of the guys I see at the range (and I go a fair bit) and certainly not wimpy in comparison. Sure, he's not a big dude, but he seems to use what he's got fairly well.

For a 2-3 handicap that he claims to be, his swing looks wimpy.

But do "most of the guys I see at the range" think they are going to be Tour players?

I think Dan's swing looks fine for somebody playing in our Saturday game but pretty sure he wouldn't crack the top 5 in distance even in that game...and nobody in that game has any aspirations to do anything other than have a little fun on the weekends.

Right, for the average player his swing looks pretty good.

[whatwoodtigerdo]

For a 2-3 handicap that he claims to be, his swing looks wimpy.

Right, for the average player his swing looks pretty good.

How exactly does a swing look wimpy? Please let me know because I am going to work on this at the range today.

[golf-noob-bruce]

For a 2-3 handicap that he claims to be, his swing looks wimpy.

Ooooh, now that you put it *that* way I totally get it!

But do "most of the guys I see at the range" think they are going to be Tour players?

You're right, he's light-years away from looking like a tour pro.

But then I can't think of anyone I've seen at the range I'd label as having a wimpy swing. Maybe uncoordinated. But wimpy? No.

[MS256]

Ooooh, now that you put it *that* way I totally get it!

You're right, he's light-years away from looking like a tour pro.

But then I can't think of anyone I've seen at the range I'd label as having a wimpy swing. Maybe uncoordinated. But wimpy? No.

Yeah that word really doesn't flash into me mind when thinking about a golf swing anyway. I reserve that word for football players that hide behind other players on the sidelines to make sure the coach doesn't see them and put them in the game.

[nevets88]

It's hard the judge a swing by video I would think. You need to see his ball flight, dispersion, etc. Some guys have not so aesthetically pleasing swings and they're tour pros, on the minor league tours, etc although instruction using video is changing that. There are some wonky looking swings out there and they can shoot lights out. Bottom line is he is scoring mid to high 80s in sanctioned tournaments in a state that is sorry Oregon, not as competitive as Florida or California, deep field wise, after 4 years of full time dedication. Four years. 1400+ days. With all the modern tech at ones disposal.

[golf-noob-bruce]

It's hard the judge a swing by video I would think. You need to see his ball flight, dispersion, etc.

Yeah, really wish he would update the stats on his blog. This is the most recent stuff I can find: http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Combine-Test-for-Dan-Plan-2013-11-07.pdf

[Lihu]

Yeah that word really doesn't flash into me mind when thinking about a golf swing anyway. I reserve that word for football players that hide behind other players on the sidelines to make sure the coach doesn't see them and put them in the game.

Football is just one of those sports that requires a burly build.

[Lihu]

Yeah, really wish he would update the stats on his blog. This is the most recent stuff I can find: http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Combine-Test-for-Dan-Plan-2013-11-07.pdf

I have a hard time believing that Dan scores around that of a good scratch player (73.8). If he were this good, there would be no way he would shoot high 80s at any tournament.

Even if we can believe the results, he's at least 2 levels below tour caliber.

I copied this from: trackman university.com/media/5df25dca-3bc5-41b5-bca8.../5.pdf

Here's a table by handicap:

Hcp          Average Score
+5 – 0              74.4
1 – 4                69.6
5 – 9                63.4
10 – 12            57.9
13 – 16            54.2
17 – 20            49.7
20+                 45.1